Managing Crises, Making Peace

Towards a Strategic EU Vision for Security and Defense

M. Galantino, M. Freire, M. Galantino, M. Freire

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781137442246
• eBook ISBN: 9781137442253
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: European Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

In the face of emerging new threats, the EU's capacity to build a distinctive role in crisis management remains problematic. Analysing EU policies and actions, this collection sheds light on the EU's role in managing crises and peacekeeping, exploring avenues for a strategic EU vision for security and defense.

1

Introduction: The Role of the EU in International Peace and Security

Maria Raquel Freire and Maria Grazia Galantino

In recent decades the European Union (EU) has quantitatively and qualitatively increased its commitment to crisis response. This has come as a result of the many challenges that have emerged, particularly in a post-Cold War context, where old and new problems have surfaced in a changed political context, prompting a more active response from the EU. The end of the Cold War and the two decades that followed brought to the international agenda new outlooks in terms of the challenges and opportunities ahead, which assumed a clear intra-state and transnational dimension. International terrorism, illicit trafficking and organised crime along with multifaceted challenges to the state’s ruling authorities, civil warfare and intra- and inter-state violence are some examples of the multi-dimensional nature of threats to international security and stability. Growing interdependence and the dismantling of old barriers have allowed for regime transition and the recognition of new states in what became the post-Soviet space, along with the expression of freedoms hitherto constrained under communist rule.

The redesign of the EU’s neighbourhood after the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the challenges associated with the consolidation of new regimes and of a new regional order in an international system in transformation have added to the need to rethink policies and instruments to decide and act in a changed context. The EU also had to adjust to a new geopolitical reality at its borders, a changed space, and a whole new reconfiguration in relations and processes towards its new vicinity. Yugoslavia was redrawn and in the former Soviet space new independent states emerged seeking their own space in a changed political setting, and the Russian Federation became a closer neighbour to the EU. The development of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), in its Eastern and Southern dimensions, sought to comply with the challenges associated to the profound changes taking place in this enlarged area. The redefinition of relations with Russia through a differentiated partnership from the ENP, here understood as positive differentiation, allowed the establishment of the so-called strategic partnership between the EU and Russia. This partnership envisages building cooperative relations in a whole new setting. Also, former Yugoslavia was integrated in a different policy from the ENP, namely within the enlargement package. Serbia, Montenegro and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have been nominated as candidate countries, and Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina – and Kosovo under UN Security Resolution 1244 – as potential candidates (European Commission, 2014). This implies a diversity of policies, though the main instruments applied within the ENP, the policy of enlargement and relations with Russia, are in general, similar. The main goal is providing the necessary political tools for engaging with these states in a cooperative manner that might foster security and stability throughout Europe. The challenges ahead are many, as well as the opportunities for seeking multilateral engagement, with their implications for the development of the security and defence policies of the EU.¹

The crisis in Ukraine that followed the Ukrainian authorities’ decision not to sign the Association Agreement with the EU at the Vilnius Eastern Partnership Summit, on 28–29 November 2013 (European Council, 2013: 3), adds to the challenges ahead for the EU at a time when a refreezing of relations between the EU and Russia is taking place. The changes to the map of Europe resulting from this crisis, including the annexation of Crimea by Russia, extend to political, economic and social changes in terms of the need to rethink this fundamental relationship as well as to define its pragmatic basis. The distancing between the EU and Russia has widened with the Ukrainian crisis; realignments in terms of security are taking place, including the discussion about the possibility of Finland and Sweden joining the Atlantic Alliance² and the rebalancing of dependence relations between the EU and Russia, with a particular focus on energy issues. The new gas pipeline agreement between Russia and China, signed on 29 May 2014, is fundamental in this regard. The consequences of the Ukrainian crisis are not yet fully understandable; however, it seems clear that the changes taking place will lead to a different European order, where security and defence matters will play a prominent role in the political debate.

Towards this end of better responding to old and emerging challenges, the EU’s reliance on a comprehensive approach, based on military and civilian means – drawing on preventive diplomacy, crisis management and peacebuilding tools – has become paradigmatic. However, in the face of new threats and emerging crises, the EU capacity to build a distinctive role in crisis management remains problematic. In recent years, the process of dual adaptation of the EU level of governance with the national projection of interest has faced some backlash. Resurging divergences in major member states’ positions are posing a serious challenge to the objective of a more integrated European defence and security strategy. The enlargement of the EU between 1995 and 2013, which equalled to doubling its size, needs to be stated as a factor impeding the formalisation of rules of engagement that are common to all member states with regard to the decision-making and setting-up processes of peace operations. The sharp decline of military spending should here also be mentioned, interlinked with the financial crisis that erupted in 2008 which has been having a deep impact within the Union. Nevertheless, the discussion about the need for a stronger defence component within the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) has been gaining relevance, particularly after the Ukrainian events. Additionally, the differences between member states regarding how ambitious and proactive peace promotion through civil and military means should be have also contributed to lack of consensus. In fact, different EU countries have different normative frameworks for civilian missions and a unique level of involvement with the EU missions; and willingness and capabilities for deployment in complex conflicts also differ, leaving the EU, at instances, ill-suited for assuming security and defence-related commitments.

In fact, foreign policy and security issues remain objects of intergovernmental consensus, signalling the sovereign rights EU member states seek to retain in order to allow them a saying in fundamental matters to European and beyond-Europe security. Together with other challenges the EU faces in the finding of common ground towards defining policies and acting, the limits to the enactment of a common foreign policy solidly grounded on shared principles and capabilities have been clear and need to be discussed. As such the chapter starts by discussing the process of development of the CSDP and how its evolution denotes, despite limits, enormous progress in terms of both words and actions. Then it proceeds to the analysis of the most problematic issues in this process of consolidation, regarding both internal dynamics to the process of decision-shaping and making, as well as exogenous ones, directly connected to the spaces and contexts of intervention. The following section identifies the main issues that have been discussed in the literature and how the engagement in certain debates has been limited, paving the way for new research avenues. The last section is dedicated to the organisational structure of the book.

1.1 The fostering of the Common Security and Defence Policy

The process of development of the CSDP, with strengthened capabilities and means, demonstrates the EU path towards developing its security actorness, although demonstrating also the limits it faces in translating agreed principles into concrete action. The decision to institutionally give form to the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) was made at the 1999 Helsinki European Council, where the ground was laid to the establishment of the Political and Security Committee (PSC), the EU Military Committee (EUMC) and the EU Military Staff (EUMS). All decisions made within the ESDP framework required unanimity from member states, with defence and security issues remaining at the intergovernmental level of decision-making within the EU. With time the EU created capabilities for action, such as rapid reaction forces and battle groups in the military domain and developed civilian crisis management tools designed to address peacebuilding in areas such as police, rule of law, civil administration and civil protection (the basis for the military and civilian dimensions of CSDP were launched at the 1999 Helsinki Council and 2000 Feira Council, respectively).³

Tools and procedures were refined with time and the EU launched its first operation in 2003, the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In December that same year, the Union approved the European Security Strategy (ESS, 2003), entitled ‘A Secure Europe in a Better World’, as an aggregating document that sought to identify the general guidelines for common external action, and highlighted five major threats to European and global security, including the threat posed by global terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, failed states and organised crime. To meet these objectives, it was stated that the EU security policy must be made more active, more coherent through better coordination between the various policy-making levels, and more capable – especially through the development of crisis management, diplomatic and intelligence tools (Freire, 2008). In articulation, the ESS, the strengthening of the EU regarding crisis management tools, and the deployment of peace operations constituted a fundamental step in the EU’s definition as a security actor.

The fostering of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and of defence matters within the then ESDP demonstrated the concern with the external dimension of relations and how this could have an impact inside the EU regarding its own security and stability. In fact, the reasoning became much on the lines that stability at the borders of the EU and in its enlarged neighbourhood meant stability within the Union. The three Ps policy – proximity, prosperity, poverty – as the Neighbourhood Policy was defined, signalled this alignment. The underlining rationale to the development of the ENP was the promotion of an enlarged area of security and prosperity at the EU’s borders, through trust building and the sharing of experiences and ways of doing that might facilitate cooperation in different areas of activity – from political and economic issues to security concerns. The principle is that the harmonisation of procedures at the administrative, financial and political levels will facilitate contacts and allow cooperation to proceed more swiftly. The Neighbourhood Policy is, therefore, in line with the ESS principles for the promotion of stability in the regions bordering the EU (Commission of the European Communities, 2003: 5). ENP origins go back to the ‘Wider Europe’ initiative of early 2002 that initially involved Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine. The idea was then extended to the Mediterranean area in December 2002 (Copenhagen European Council), and in 2004 (Brussels European Council) it was enlarged to include the three South Caucasus countries (Freire, 2013). This enlarged neighbouring area gained relevance in the EU’s external agenda, with particular attention devoted to insecurity dynamics that were and have been present and that constitute, naturally, a further challenge to the Union.

In this context, peace operations became a fundamental tool at the EU’s disposal to deal with instability in a broader area, mainly focusing on its eastern and southern neighbourhoods, but extending beyond these into Africa and Asia. These missions project the security-designed rationale that underpins EU interventions, in line with the ESS and fundamental documents that have been adopted regarding civilian and military crisis management, in what became after Lisbon the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP, 2014).

The Lisbon Treaty sought to bring more coherence to the panoply of instruments that were developed through a number of institutional reforms aimed at streamlining procedures and decision-making – in particular, the establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS) – bringing together the Commission’s external relations and the Council’s personnel in an entity directed at supporting the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy in ensuring the ‘unity, consistency and effectiveness of action’ within the CFSP. In the last ten years, then, significant progress in the direction of harmonising policies and tools has been made. Nevertheless, as some contributions in this book show, the EU is still proceeding at a slow pace towards a distinct EU ‘comprehensive approach’. In fact, recent research contributions, as well as policy reports and political statements about CSDP, focus on the need to speed up this process and to move on with an updated definition of the European strategy in defence and security. The broadly announced EEAS/Commission’s Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on the EU’s Comprehensive Approach to External Conflict and Crises (EEAS, 2013), published in December 2013, offers clarifications and guidelines regarding the comprehensiveness the EU aspires. The document states various measures to ‘improve the coherence and effectiveness of EU external action in crisis or conflict situations’. These include common criteria for identifying potential crises and the EU’s response in terms of interests, objectives and roles; the adoption of a common strategic vision for a conflict or crisis situation whenever understood useful; preventive action; mobilisation of resources towards supporting shared goals; long-term commitment, even if carrying out short- or medium-term actions, to assure effective peacebuilding and contribute to resilient societies; linking policy areas for internal and external action on areas as different as energy security, climate change or counterterrorism; focus more on reports by EU delegations on the field to better define strategies and render development cooperation more effective; and streamline the partnerships with the UN, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) or the African Union in this regard, along with further involving civil society representatives in the processes.⁴ The specific elements identified in the document suggest a learning process from EU experience and forward-looking steps in terms of integrating strategies, aims and capabilities. It also highlights the human and local dimensions associated to the comprehensiveness of the EU approach. However, as the contributions to this volume demonstrate, this is a demanding path particularly in terms of congregating different visions among EU states to provide for concerted action.

Turning to the actual implementation of CSDP, to date, the EU deployed a total of 31 operations, 21 being civilian, 9 military, and 1 civilian/military (operation support to AMIS II Sudan/Darfur, 2005–2006) (CSDP, 2014). By February 2014, 15 of the total deployed operations were completed. These numbers reveal that in ten years the EU gained considerable experience in crisis management through its involvement in different contexts, from Europe to Asia and Africa, and with different means, of a civilian and military nature as well as a combination of both. These developments also show the growing ability of the EU in just a decade to respond in a more effective manner to the challenges it faces in Europe and beyond Europe on international peace and security. The focus on civilian peace operations, which hav...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1  Introduction: The Role of the EU in International Peace and Security
• Part I  Conceptual Approaches to EU Crisis |Management
• Part II  The EU in the Field
• Index